Steve Bates covers the latest absurdity from the wingnut judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in DC – businesses can have religions, and the government can’t make them act against their religion.

So, if the owner’s religion opposes blood transfusions [several religions do] you can exclude blood transfusions from your health insurance, and if the owner is a member of one of the religions that believe prayer is the only answer to health problems, the business is totally exempt from the law. If that isn’t how it works, then the Court ruled that Catholic doctrine is more important than the doctrine of other religions, and that view is blatantly unconstitutional.

Not that it is really important, but health insurance companies will usually either charge more for maternity coverage without contraceptive coverage, or refuse to cover maternity. From their point of view, contraceptives reduce the maternity costs.

In Australia the public broadcast company, ABC, actually commits journalism on a routine basis by fact checking the public statements of politicians and pundits.

Their latest Fact Check is on marriage:

The Prime Minister is known for his conservative stance on the issue, a position he recently said stems in part from his understanding of what marriage traditionally meant.

“From time immemorial, in every culture that’s been known, marriage or that kind of solemnised relationship has been between a man and a woman,” Mr Abbott said on October 25.

But have marriage, or marriage-like relationships, always followed that rule? The short answer is no.

The ABC went and talked to historians, classicists, sociologists, and anthropologists to find the answer. If you read the discussion you will begin to understand how narrow is the scope of history and culture held by many of the people in the First World.

This is not something we see happening in the US media.

Mini-Sox Rabbits

Go away!

[Editor: Mini-Sox has ventured out in daylight looking for some warmth.]

Friday Ark